Ellis: 'Tell me again what the problem is here'

A crystal ball glimpse into a future City Council deliberation on urban ag rules

Dec. 8, 2012

After many moons, after many hours of conversation, after grueling give and take, the illustrious Task Force on Urban Agriculture has completed its sacred duties and submitted its proposals to the even more illustrious City Council.

The City Council is known throughout the Western world as the second most deliberative body in Sioux Falls, behind the bar scene at the Crow Bar.

What started as an earnest attempt to decide whether Sioux Falls residents should be allowed to keep chickens has come down to this: Yes, you can keep chickens. But only six. More than six and you need the permission of 80 percent of your neighbors, though not their dogs, who are assumed to be unanimously in favor.

Now in the hands of the second most deliberative body in Sioux Falls, we jump ahead a few weeks to a future City Council meeting.

The year is 2013.

Shawna Goldammer, the city’s zoning administrator, stands before the council to deliver the recommendations. Goldammer is noticeably bald on the sides of her head. After being a “facilitator” for the Task Force on Urban Agriculture for more than a year, Goldammer has developed a bad habit of pulling out her hair.

“So,” she says as she finishes her presentation, “we’ve concluded that six chickens is a suitable number that will allow residents to engage in urban agriculture without becoming a burden to neighbors. Any questions?”

Kermit Staggers raises his hand. “Tell me again what the problem is here.”

Goldammer: “I’m not sure I remember anymore. It’s all a fog. I think somebody somewhere had some chickens or goats, or something.”

“Well,” Staggers responds, “it sounds to me like we’re making regulations for the sake of making regulations. What are we, the Obama White House?”

“Absolutely not,” responds Rex Rolfing, one of two council members to serve on the task force. “We need to draw a line, because if people don’t know where the line is, they might cross it.”

Next comes Sue Aguilar. “What if I want a turkey? I like turkey.”

Goldammer: “You would need a license to own a turkey. And besides, you can’t slaughter animals in city limits under our proposal.”

“A license?” asks Staggers. “I don’t need a license to buy a firearm, but I need one for a turkey? What’s next, a license to buy a Butterball turkey for Thanksgiving?”

“Wait,” says Dean Karsky, the other council member to serve on the urban ag task force. “Turkeys can be vicious animals known to attack children walking to school. I know. I sell an insurance policy on turkey attacks. Happens all the time.”

“Let’s go back to that slaughter issue,” Jim Entenman says. “I think some people in town hunt pheasant. They hunt other animals. Are you saying those animals can’t be processed at home?”

“Technically, if it’s hunting, the ‘slaughter’ part occurs in the field while hunting,” Goldammer says. “We don’t allow hunting in city limits, so the ‘slaughter’ would not occur here. But no, under the letter of the law as we’ve proposed, if you determined that one of your pheasants was only wounded, you would need to drive it outside city limits before finishing the slaughter.”

“So what you’re saying,” asks Michelle Erpenbach, “is if I wanted to turn one of my chickens into a pot of healthy, nutritious chicken noodle soup, I would need to transport the chicken out of town before I could start the soup-making process?”

“Nothing in our proposal stops you from cutting your onions and celery first, but correct, you can’t slaughter the chicken in city limits,” Goldammer responds.

“Why?” Erpenbach asks.

“We’re trying to be sensitive here,” Goldammer explains. “Some people believe that chicken comes from a factory that produces McNuggets. They don’t know it’s a real animal, and to peek over a fence only to see a neighbor engaged in the slaughter process would be overly traumatic.”